1.    The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal for demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The entire proposal shall adhere to all the applicable statutory provisions, and norms/regulations of the prevailing Lutyens Bungalow Zone (LBZ) guidelines.

b) The provision of air-conditioning units on the façade is not given in the proposal (drawings/3d views). The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, provision shall be made to accommodate the outdoor units, so as not to mar the aesthetics.

c) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

d) All plumbing pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the South DMC (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal for demolition of the existing structure and reconstruction received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All plumbing pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal routed through SDMC (online) at its meeting held on August 05, 2021, specific observations were given. The SDMC has refused the sanction indicating that the proposal falls in the jurisdiction of DDA.

3. The architect/proponent has resubmitted the building plan proposal through DDA (online) at formal stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

b) All plumbing pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the GNCTD PWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The building plan proposal received (online) at the formal stage was scrutinised and a detailed discussion was held with the architect on Cisco WebEx Meetings who provided clarifications to the queries of the Commission on various aspects related to inconsistency in the proposal,  screening of services, location of generator set, screening of exhaust pipes, the proposal for connecting proposed and existing court through an underground tunnel etc. and the following observations are to be complied with: 

a) It is shown in the proposal that the new construction is being connected to the existing building complex, through an underground connection with shops. The details of the underground connection are missing in the whole submission and thus shall be provided including layout plans, elevations, sections and 3d views and other relevant details to understand their functioning.

b) Inconsistencies have been observed in the submission. The eighth-floor plan (as submitted in the drawings) does not correlate with the 3d Views submitted, thus is inconsistent, need to be revised accordingly. Also, Section AA’ mentions the ramp to the 3rd basement, whereas as submitted in the layout plans and proposals, it proposes only two basements. The section shows 3 stack parking in the 2nd basement, whereas the report mentions 2 stacks parking provisions. The sections shall also be thus corrected and resubmitted in the revised proposal.

c) The project is submitted at the Formal stage and should submit detailed drawings of sections (longitudinal and cross-section across the site as well) to clearly depict the distribution of various functions in the site. Also, the skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.

d) The vehicle circulation pattern in the basement is unclear i.e. It does not clearly define the vehicle movement (entry and exit to the basement etc.). The parking plan shall be clear in all respect and shall include all the relevant details to make itself explanatory.

e) The site has negligible green/open spaces for recreational activities. The complex being a building for public use shall have some meaningful green spaces to ensure its use by visitors/users. Also, the peripheral greens shall be maintained to increase the green cover in the complex.

f) A typical functional furniture arrangement for areas including dining and kitchen (along with associated services) to be provided to ensure clarity about circulation and functioning.

g) The cafeteria for judges and other areas in the complex would generate a lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) and therefore, a detailed solid waste management plan to depict effective means of waste disposal along with their location shall be submitted.

h) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in

i) All plumbing pipes, DG set exhaust pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

3. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the GNCTD PWD (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal was deferred.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the building plan proposal at its meeting held on January 29, 1998, and the NOC was approved in the meeting held on March 11, 2002, specific observations were given.

3. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for regularisation of building plans at its meeting held on August 12, 2021, specific observations were given.

4. The revised proposal for regularisation of building plans received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-06082122026 dated 19.08.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) It was observed that in terms of one of earlier observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. DUAC observation letter no: OL-06082122026 dated 19.08.2021 indicated at sr. no. 4(a, b, c) inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b) Only one elevation and section has been provided, it is not appreciated by the Commission. The proposal being at the formal stage shall provide an appropriate number of elevations and sections highlighting the additions/alterations and other details proposed for a better understanding of the proposal. 

c) The Commission again reiterated that it would favourably view the formal additions presented in the 3D views but observed haphazard additions of covering of balconies which cannot be approved due to their unauthorised character.

5. In view of the facts enumerated above, the architect is thereby again advised to remove the covering of all the balconies with temporary materials and restore the residential building to the position as indicated in the 3D views (submitted with the scheme for the regularisation) to enable the Commission to examine & make comments taking into consideration the overall aesthetic and visual quality of the complex, and adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission along with a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on December 5, 1997, specific observations were made. The proposal did not come before the Commission for NOC completion plan proposal. The Commission did not approve the building plan proposal for additions/alterations at its meeting held on August 25, 2021, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of balconies, bedrooms, toilets) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised along with the replies submitted by the architect in response to the observations of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no: OL-18082122028 dated 01.09.2021. Based on the revised submission and the replies submitted, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that in terms of the earlier observation of the Commission communicated vide DUAC observation letter no. OL-18082122028 dated 01.09.2021 indicated at sr. no. 3 (a, b, c, d) it was observed that inadequate compliance for this has been given.

b) The Commission observed that the provisions made for the screening of outdoor air-conditioning units, plumbing, drying of clothes, dish antenna etc. have not been shown in the submission, it shall be presented through a design scheme in a graphical format to understand it better. The same need to be revised, co-related with other drawings and be resubmitted.

c) It is again reiterated that provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood, and strongly suggests that not addressing parking requirements for the complex would spoil the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality. Existing parking and parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

d) Further, the Commission strongly suggests that set-back areas/roads counted towards achieving ECS calculations (for car parking) is not acceptable. These areas suggested to be kept free from all vehicular parking requirements, it shall be kept free for emergencies. It is again reiterated that alternative mechanisms shall be explored to accommodate all the existing and proposed parking requirements of the proposal without compromising areas meant for pedestrian and vehicular circulation. 

4. The architect is advised to adhere to all the above observations given by the Commission and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded by the DDA (online) for consideration by the Commission.

2. The Commission approved the layout and the building plan proposal at its meeting held on March 15, 1996, and the NOC for completion was approved in the meeting held on November 22, 2005. The proposal for additions/alterations was approved in the meeting held on September 08, 2018, specific observations were given.

3. The revised building plans proposal for additions/alterations (addition of an additional room, balconies, verandah) received (online) at formal stage was scrutinised. The Commission intended to discuss some of the issues related to the proposal with the architect at the Cisco WebEx meeting (online), but he was not available, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) Provisions made for proposed parking are not clearly understood. The Commission observed that not addressing parking requirements for the complex would spoil the overall visual, urban, environmental, and aesthetic quality. Existing parking and the parking from additional FAR (proposed) are to be shown clearly on the layout plan with the bifurcation of two.

b) The submitted site photographs do not clearly indicate the required details. An appropriate number of existing site pictures are to be provided from all sides. They need to be resubmitted with proper uncut views from all sides to comprehend the proposal clearly.

c) From the submitted photographs it is observed that some of the existing residential units have covered balconies with temporary sheets and temporary sun-shades have been provided over windows which have spoiled the overall visual, urban and aesthetic quality of the complex.  To avoid the same, appropriate provisions shall be made in the design at this stage itself to avoid requirements for such temporary extensions by the residents in future. All encroachments/extensions/corrugated sheets, covering of balconies with temporary materials etc. in the building structures shall be removed.

d) Existing photographs clearly indicate the presence of air-conditioning outdoor units on the external façade. The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views.

e) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes. Innovative architectural features and materials shall screen dish antennas in the balconies.

f) It is suggested to be ensured that the added balcony structure shall be such designed that it withstands weather effects, impacts from calamities like earthquakes etc. as it is an additional structure added to the existing superstructure. It is suggested to be braced strongly to the building and does not impact the safety of the superstructure while addition/alteration.

g) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans.  Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. The screening for the same shall also be mentioned and marked clearly in the plans/3D views.

h) Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

i) All plumbing pipes, service equipment should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) are available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

4. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.

1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.

2. The proposal for Covering the ramps of Benito Juarez Marg underpass entry & exit received (online) at the conceptual stage was scrutinised, the following observations are to be complied with:

a) The Commission observed that the nomenclature of the proposal is incorrect as it does not mention and provided sufficient details/scheme etc. for the parallel proposal including skywalk and flyover on portal frames, which is not appreciated by the Commission. However, considering the proposal for public use at large it was examined and commented upon. The Commission desired that when it is submitted at the formal stage, it shall be clearly renamed to the correct nomenclature (as mentioned in the project report submitted) to avoid future ambiguities.

b) The stretch for the ramp covers a substantial area and would have a strong influence on the overall urban aesthetics of the area and its surroundings. The details for material, fabric, maintenance, longevity etc. of the ramp covering is missing in the submission. The proposal shall clearly outline the above-mentioned details in the form of a holistic scheme supplemented by an appropriate number of annotated 3d views. Also, as other structures are being proposed as a part of the project including skywalk and flyover on portal frames, a comprehensive submission shall be made which would provide a clearer picture of the overall scheme. Since the structures are set in a common context, it is strongly suggested by the commission that the form/material etc. for their covering shall be similar to maintain harmony in design, and be projected holistically in the submission.

c) The proposal shall also be seen from the perspective of motorists driving and passengers riding experience. All elements need to be worked out at an initial stage and nothing should be done as an afterthought, not in context, to the design. An overall comprehensive scheme needs to be formulated to avoid any additions/alterations at a later stage. Details of various street elements like Light poles, railings, signage for wayfinding, and appropriate provisions for rainwater harvesting need to be submitted. Rainwater pipes etc. shall ensure to be screened.

d) Considering the scale, size, location, and abundance of spaces available under the skywalk they shall be designed and put to appropriate use to ensure that they do not become dumping grounds or be encroached so as not to spoil the overall urban and visual aesthetics of the area. Also, these spaces may be used for landscaping, rainwater harvesting etc.

e) A comprehensive landscape plan including the area below the skywalk for the complete scheme needs to be worked out and submitted along with a sufficient number of Self-explanatory 3D views. An appropriate number of sections (longitudinal and cross-sections) along with the elevational heights of the surrounding development etc. be submitted for a better understanding of the overall scheme with materials in the actual environment.

f) The details as to how the incorporation of the solar photovoltaic panels into the design would help in reducing the carbon footprint of the site, and how much electricity could be generated via the design improvisations which could be fed directly into the grid shall be indicated in the revised scheme.

g) The proposal lacks landscape details and shall be submitted in the respective drawings, and shall indicate details of trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval)) as available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.in.

h) The work of art presented was not appreciated by the Commission. The Commission observed that the continuous work of art shown on the walls would distract the motorists and overpower the ramp covering. Instead, abstract forms of art (such as seen at airports), mosaic, landscaped elements etc. shall be explored to cover the long-spanning internal vertical surface of the ramps, which do not create any focal points/generate curiosity to distract the motorists.

i) The Commission opines that a proposal of this magnitude has the potential to display work of public art imparting character, identity, culture, traditions, and the spirit of the city. The possibility of various options of a theme-based public artwork shall be explored and submitted.

3. Considering the impact of the proposal on the visual, environmental, urban aesthetics of the area, the architect was advised to adhere to the above observations & submit the proposal, along with a theme-based public artwork, and furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply in the subsequent (Formal) submission.